Micro levies for global public goods - GSDRC · 2018-10-03 · Micro levies for global public goods...
Transcript of Micro levies for global public goods - GSDRC · 2018-10-03 · Micro levies for global public goods...
Helpdesk Research Report
www.gsdrc.org
Micro levies for global public goods
Becky Carter
18.12.2015
Question
What experience is there of using micro levies to mobilise finance for global public goods?
What scale of funding have these realised? What are the criteria that have shaped
success/failure? What opportunities have been identified for micro levies to contribute to
global public goods?
Contents
1. Overview2. Definition and rationale3. Case studies4. How successful have these initiatives been and why?5. Potential6. References
1. Overview
In 2002, the Monterrey Consensus catalysed a donor search for “innovative” – alternative – sources of
Official Development Assistance (ODA) to finance the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
(Girishankar 2009: 1; United Nations 2009: 81). One type of innovative development finance is the micro
levy, also referred to in donor literature as taxes, dues and solidarity levies. While governments may
introduce these new taxes to fulfil more than one objective, the donor community has become interested
in the prospect of using the revenues generated to finance development activities. Donor proponents of
this type of innovative finance for development make the case for linking new taxes on globalised
activities (finance, travel etc.) or global public bads (carbon emissions) to financing global public
goods. To date, existing micro levies have been used to finance health and climate change adaptation
activities.1
1 With very few examples of micro levies existing, this review has not attempted to limit the search to particular global public goods. It has searched for literature on micro levies that are used to fund any global
public goods and development goals, including education; health; climate change and adaptation; and humanitarian objectives.
2 GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report
This rapid review has identified the following principal examples of micro-levy initiatives that are
currently implemented, where revenues support global public goods:
Solidarity levy on airline tickets – channelled to UNITAID to support the treatment and care for those affected by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, focusing on low income countries. This is the most commonly cited case in the literature.
Micro levies on oil, gas, gold and other mining activities – channelled to UNITLIFE to fight
chronic malnutrition in sub-Saharan Africa.
French financial transactions tax – earmarked for French global climate and health activities.
Norwegian carbon tax – channelled to UNITAID.
Tax on Certified Emissions Reduction – channelled to the Adaptation Fund to finance climate change adaptation.
There are limited assessments of the few existing micro levies – and most of the reviews available focus
on the predominant example of the solidarity levy on airline tickets. Key findings include:
Assessments of micro levies find that they have added to public funds for development (although it is hard to assess whether in practice this boosts ODA levels or substitutes for governments' traditional ODA efforts). However, these are not major fundraisers –
innovative financing is a small part of public sector development assistance, and micro
levies an even smaller part of that.
On the whole, mechanisms such as the airline ticket solidarity levy are considered to have provided more stable and predictable revenue streams for international development than traditional donor budget outlays. But experts caution that such taxes remain vulnerable to fluctuations in global economic or other conditions, and domestic political will.
There are well-publicised claims for the reach and development impact of initiatives such as the airline ticket tax, and in particular for the results of UNITAID. Data and attribution issues can make it difficult to verify these results while the use of (new) vertical funds to channel the resources raised by micro levies has both positives and risks. Nevertheless, independent evaluations refer to “impressive market and public health outcomes” by UNITAID, while recommending greater focus on the sustainability of results, among other issues.
The airline solidarity levy is often lauded as a significant pioneering example of innovative micro levies
helping to finance international development goals. Its founders and advocates urge the development of
other micro-levy proposals to finance other global public goods. Proposals include: aviation taxes;
financial transaction taxes; a global currency transaction tax; a global carbon tax; and solidarity tobacco
contributions. There has been slow progress on developing these further. A key challenge is that
coordinated action requires years of international negotiation, while governments face domestic
pressure not to divert revenues to foreign beneficiaries (UNDP 2012). Others make the case for investing
in greater international cooperation for direct tax collection (an existing G20 commitment). They argue that this would be a more sustainable and equitable system than new forms of global taxation
which can incur new administration costs and continue traditional ODA relationships (Fitzgerald 2013:
abstract).
Micro levies for global public goods
3
2. Definition and rationale
Definition
The term “micro levy” is used in donor policy and promotional literature by the Leading Group on
Innovative Financing for Development2 and by the Special Advisor to the Secretary–General of the United
Nations (UN) in charge of Innovative Financing for Development, Philippe Douste-Blazy. This review has
not, however, found a clear and simple definition of micro levies for global public goods. Donor
summaries of different types of innovative development financing tend to include a category of ‘taxes’
instead. For example, in a categorisation of innovative development financing by UNDP (2012), “taxes,
dues or other obligatory charges on globalized activities” are one of four main types of innovative
development financing identified. Another categorisation by Guarnaschelli et al (2014) identifies taxes as
one of 14 types of instruments frequently classified as innovative financing for development goals.
While the literature emphasises the obligatory nature of these taxes, the reality is more complex,
as some involve voluntary sign-up by participating countries.3 A 2009 World Bank research paper finds
that proposed global taxes vary in whether they involve obligatory long-term payments, noting that
usually a tax is considered obligatory mechanism imposed on the tax payer (Gerishanker 2009:
71-72). Instead, some of the new initiatives involve solidarity contributions of countries that are
implementing the tax voluntarily. Gerishanker (2009; 71-72) notes that these kinds of taxes have
been called “levies” or “solidarity levies”.4
Rationale
Donor literature focuses on how new micro levies can be implemented to raise revenues for global
public goods.5 Intended advantages listed in the literature include:
Generating new, additional public revenue streams for development from the private sector
(UNDP 2012: 8).
Providing stable and predictable long-term funding to finance international development
(Gerishankar 2009: 72).
Linking the global economy and the wealth of globalisation with global public goods by levying
global economic activity to pay for global public goods (Leading Group 2010: 4).
Producing “a “double dividend” by offsetting a global public bad as well as raising additional
finance (Gerishankar 2009: 72).
2 The Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development, created in 2006 with 64 member countries, international organizations, NGOs and foundations, aims to promote innovative financing for development. http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/development-assistance/innovative-financing-for/ 3 Within innovative development finance, there have also been also initiatives that involve voluntary solidarity contributions by consumers. These are not covered in this review, as the donor literature tends to categorise these as separate from (obligatory) taxes and levies. (UNDP 2012). 4 For example, the Innovative Finance Foundation talks of “global solidarity levies”, referring to the taxes on airline tickets and extractive industries. http://www.innovativefinance.foundation/ 5 This report does not attempt to define global public goods. It has searched for literature on micro levies that uses this term and other related terms (such as development goals, including education; health; climate change and adaptation; and humanitarian objectives).
4 GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report
Promoting South-South cooperation by allowing new actors from Africa and Latin America to
participate in financing international development (UNITAID n.d.).
Painless, effortless to the global consumer (Douste-Blazy 2015).
This review has found limited academic analysis of the economic case for micro levies for global public
goods as an overall concept. An outlier is an article by Chassin et al (2013: 5) that argues that
“international finance development taxes do not meet the criteria of “good” taxes suggested by the
standard or orthodox theory of public finance”6. A 2010 report by the Leading Group assesses levies on
the finance sector for global public goods against criteria of sufficiency; market impact; feasibility;
sustainability; and suitability – and makes the case for a global currency transaction tax. There is also a
large economic literature analysing current and proposed taxes on financial and currency transactions.
3. Case studies
Airline ticket solidarity levy
The most cited example of a micro-levy that helps fund global public goods is the airline ticket tax
launched in 2006. This nationally implemented and internationally co-ordinated tax on airline ticket sales
is paid by individual air passengers when they purchase their ticket, with transit passengers exempt and
airlines responsible for collecting and declaring the levy (UNITAID 2011). Countries decide what rate to
apply and ticket class to include. The airline ticket tax is collected in 9 countries – Cameroon, Chile,
Congo, France, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Niger and the Republic of Korea (OECD 2014: 181). This
review has not found an overview of the tax rates in each country, how much revenue is raised or how it
is spent. There is most information available on the tax raised in France.
In France, domestic/intra-European Union economy class passengers are charged EUR 1 and international
economy passengers are charged EUR 4. For first and business class, the rate is EUR 10 for
domestic/intra-European Union and EUR 40 for international flights7 (OECD 2014: 181). In January 2013,
France’s Directorate General for Civil Aviation announced that EUR 1 billion had been collected since the
inception of this tax in 2006 (OECD 2014: 181). A 2011 report by the French National Assembly found
revenue stable at around EUR 160 million a year (UNITAID n.d.).
Most of the resources raised through the airline ticket tax are channelled into UNITAID8 (UNDP 2012: 10).
UNITAID was founded in 2006 by Brazil, Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom specifically to
channel resources raised through the airline ticket micro-levy initiative into treatment and care for those
affected by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria (UNDP 2012: 10; UNITAID n.d). UNITAID reports that
countries can choose to channel all or some of the revenue to UNITAID. For example, at the end of 2010,
France pledged a yearly sum of EUR 110 million from the levy to UNITAID for the period 2011–2013
(UNITAID n.d.). In total the airline solidarity levy has raised USD 1.9 billion, or 65% of UNITAID’s funds,
6 Chassin et al (2013: 5) argue that “international finance development taxes do not meet the criteria of “good” taxes suggested by the standard or orthodox theory of public finance: efficiency, low administrative costs, flexibility, political accountability, and fairness”. They give as examples – among others – that the airline ticket tax hits relatively elastic demand, which implies a large excess burden (economic cost), while many proposed taxes will carry high administrative costs (in particular the proposed tobacco tax). 7 In comparison Chile imposes a fixed rate of USD 2 on all international flights (UNDP 2012: 10). 8 OECD (2014: 181) reports that funds from the airline tax are also generated for the International Finance Facility for Immunization (IFFIm). This rapid review has not found further information on this.
Micro levies for global public goods
5
since its inception in 2006 (Guarnaschelli et al 2014: 5). About 94% of the funding that is generated
through the airline tax for UNITAID comes from France (Zühr et al 2014: 2).
UNITAID support focuses on HIV/AIDS (accounting for over half of all funds), TB, malaria, and other cross-
cutting areas. UNITAID seeks to impact on markets for drugs, diagnostics and preventive interventions,
through decreasing prices and increasing access, and acting as a catalyst for new, innovative treatments
and formulations (DFID 2013). To implement projects, UNITAID works together with international health
organisations rather than financing countries or projects directly (Zühr et al 2014: 3). The 34 projects
funded by UNITAID to date have been implemented by 23 partners in 94 countries, with funding
particularly focused on low-income countries (Zühr et al 2014: 3).
Micro levy on oil, gas, gold and other mining activities
UNITLIFE, a new financing mechanism launched in September 2015 and led by the UN Under Secretary-
General in Charge of Innovative Financing and the Innovative Finance Foundation (IFF), applies the
UNITAID model to extractive industries. It aims to use micro-levies on oil, gas, gold and other mining
activities to counter chronic malnutrition in sub-Saharan Africa (UN MDG Health Envoy 2015).
Four countries signed up at the launch to commit funds to UNITLIFE: the Republic of Congo, Guinea, Niger
and Mali (UN MDG Health Envoy 2015). UNITLIFE’s website says there are now six participating countries
but does not name them (IFF n.d.). The micro-levies are in the range of 0.1% on their oil, gas, gold and
other mining activities, according to the IFF (n.d.). The Republic of Congo is the first to introduce this
micro-levy, at USD 0.10 on each barrel of oil sold by the state, equivalent to 0.001% (IFF 2014: 2). The IFF
(2014: 2) projects that if rolled out to eight African countries, a 10 cents micro-levy on oil would generate
USD100-200 million annually, depending on the portion of oil sales included. If all the world’s oil
producing countries joined in, the mechanism would generate over USD 1.64 billion a year (ibid.).
French financial transactions tax
A financial transaction tax (FTT) is a levy applied on specific types of monetary transactions, such as the
purchase of shares, bonds, traded funds and derivatives. Discussion of FTTs in recent years has centred
on two possible objectives: to slow down overheated and dangerously volatile financial markets, and/or
to generate substantial additional public revenue, part of which could be used to finance development.
(Moon and Omole 2013: 26; OECD 2014: 182). FTTs are commonplace, having been implemented over
many decades in at least 40 countries, including France, United Kingdom, the United States, South Africa
and India. Not all cases, however, involve using the revenues to finance development objectives.
France does channel a proportion of FTT revenues to development. Introduced in 2012, the French FTT
applies to transactions of shares of listed French companies whose market capitalisation exceeds EUR 1
billion (0.2%), as well as to high-frequency trading and insurance contracts against government default
risk (0.02%) (French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development 2013). In 2013 the French
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development reported the FTT raised a total of EUR 648
million in a year. 10% of the proceeds were pledged to be allocated to global climate and health
activities, with, in 2013, priority given to health care access initiatives for Sahel’s children. France’s 2014
budget raised the revenue allocation for development aid to 15%, earmarked to keep France’s
commitments to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and to contribute to the new
Green Climate Fund (Development Initiatives 2013).
6 GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report
Carbon taxes9
A carbon tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and gas) is designed to provide
businesses and individuals with an incentive to curb activities that produce CO2 emissions (UNDP 2012:
19). Under such initiatives, UNDP (2012: 19) reports that policymakers levy a fee either for each tonne of
CO2 emitted or for each tonne of carbon contained in fossil fuels. A number of countries have
implemented forms of carbon tax on a national basis over the last two decades: Sweden, Finland, the
Netherlands and Norway introduced carbon taxes in the 1990s; Japan and Australia more recently (UNDP
2012: 19; The Japan Times 2012). Norway allocates a proportion of its tax on CO2 emissions on aviation
fuel to UNITAID, amounting to 7% of UNITAID funding from 2007–2012 (Zühr et al 2014: 2).
Another carbon based small global levy was established by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This is an obligatory
2% levy on the issue of Certified Emissions Reduction (CER), which is channelled to the Adaptation Fund
(Gerishankar 2009: 72). As of June 2015, USD 194.3 million had been deposited with the Adaptation Fund
from the sale of CERs10. The Fund has supported a range of climate change adaptation activities, from
water resources and land management, health and infrastructure development to building institutional
capacity for disaster prevention, preparedness, response and management, among others11 (UNDP 2012:
15). As of 2011, the Adaptation Fund had funded 11 projects in developing countries totalling
approximately USD 70 million (UNDP 2012: 15).
4. How successful have these initiatives been and why?
This review has found limited independent analysis of the success of micro levies. Most assessment is
focused on the airline ticket solidarity levy and UNITAID12.
Overall assessment
The World Economic and Social Survey 2012 by UNDESA (2012: v) concluded that international taxes
(including a levy on air travel) have added to public funds for international cooperation. The report goes
on however to add that these mechanisms have not proved to be major fundraisers (UNDESA 2012: v).
Innovative financing remains a small component of public sector development assistance, and micro
levies still play a smaller role13 (Guarnaschelli et al 2014: viii).
UNDP’s 2012 review of innovative development finance concludes that innovative taxation schemes such
as the airline tax did raise additional revenues for development (UNDP 2012: 22). However, UNDP also
finds it difficult to conclude whether innovative development finance in practice boosts ODA levels or
substitutes for government traditional ODA (UNDP 2012: 22). Interestingly, the report goes on to
9 A related innovative financing mechanism is revenues raised from the sale of CO2 emission allowances, which in Germany are used for development assistance. This example has not been included in this report because it is not typically described as a tax or levy in the literature. See the I-8 Group (no date) for further details. 10 http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/adaptation-fund 11 http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/adaptation-fund 12 It is too soon to assess the success of UNITLIFE which started this year. The key assessments of innovative development finance identified by this review tend not to include the tax on the sale of the CERs that is channelled to the Adaptation Fund; given time constraints, a separate search on the success of the Adaptation Fund was not undertaken as part of this review. 13 Taxes (of which the largest example is the airline ticket solidarity levy) accounted for an estimated 2.6% of the amount mobilised by innovative financing mechanisms from 2000-2013 (Guarnaschelli et al 2014: 4).
Micro levies for global public goods
7
highlight that “donors most interested in innovative finance for development are also those whose aid
levels are—by and large—on the increase” (UNDP 2012: 22).
Another success criterion is whether micro levies provide predictable and stable revenues. An
independent study by Dalberg Global Development Advisors concludes that mechanisms such as the
solidarity levy have successfully provided “an additional and predictable revenue source” for
international development (Guarnaschelli et al 2014: x). The UNDP assessment (2012: 28) also finds that
initiatives such as the airline ticket tax have on the whole provided more stable and predictable revenue
streams for international development than traditional donor budget outlays. However, the study also
warns that taxation initiatives can still be vulnerable to fluctuations in global economic or other
conditions (UNDP 2012: 28). Moreover, there is a concern that a “dedicated” funding stream through
micro levies might be more vulnerable to discontinuation, since the specific tax would be more visible
and thus a clear target for politicians (expert comment).
Success stories on the reach and development impact of initiatives such as UNITAID are well-publicised
(UNDP 2012). UNDP (2012: 25) cautions that results may in reality be “better—or worse”, given issues of
data quality and comparability across countries, and the challenges in attributing a development
outcome to any one single intervention. Moreover when the delivery mechanism is a (new) vertical fund
(such as UNITAID), UNDP reports both positives and risks. Positives include developing economies of
scale, responding when government capacity cannot, and operating clear monitoring and evaluating
frameworks. The risks include: focusing on results to the detriment of national institution capacity-
building; accentuated fragmentation and poor coordination in the delivery of resources; and earmarking
that can create allocative inefficiencies in government expenditures (UNDP 2012: 24-25; 33-34).
Focus on UNITAID
There are several independent evaluations and analyses of the impact of UNITAID. Key findings from
recent prominent studies are:
ITAD’s 2012 five year independent evaluation of UNITAID concluded it has achieved “impressive
market and public health outcomes”. Room for improvement was identified in focusing on
ensuring the sustainability of results, and raising the overall success rate of projects.
DFID’s multilateral aid review reported several strengths, including the achievement of
significant price reductions which should lead to a sustainable benefit for countries, donors and
international agencies. Weaknesses identified were a lack of results management and uneven
application of value for money criteria in funding decisions (DFID 2013).
A critical analysis suggested UNITAID should rethink its mission, in particular examining whether
the goal of scaling up access to treatment is necessarily achieved through price reduction of
commodities (Fan and Silverman 2012).
5. Potential
Suggested new initiatives
The airline solidarity levy is often lauded in donor literature as a significant pioneering working example
of micro levies. Its founders and advocates urge the development of other micro-levy proposals to
finance global public goods. Several organisations have published reports on options for future innovative
8 GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report
finance initiatives, often focusing on revenues required for a particular development sector14. The
proposals often include global tax initiatives. Here is a brief summary of some of the more prominent
examples.
Aviation taxes
There are several proposals for taxes on international aviation, from regional and global taxes to
coordinated taxes whose proceeds are earmarked toward development (Gerishankar 2009: 60). A variety
of tax bases have been proposed, including taxing aviation fuel, ticket values, and departure/arrival taxes
(Gerishankar 2009: 60). One suggestion is that the airline ticket solidarity levy could easily be
implemented by many other (richer and poorer) countries (UNDP 2012: 36).
Financial transaction taxes (FTTs)
There are projections of what various regional and global FTTs could raise, with the suggestion that part
of these additional revenues could be used to finance development and/or climate change adaptation
and mitigation in developing countries (OECD 2014: 182). Estimations of how much revenue these taxes
could generate vary widely, reports UNDP (2012: 18), because of proposed differences in tax rates and
financial transactions covered.
OECD’s 2014 development cooperation report focuses on innovative development finance. Citing a 2011
UNITAID report15, OECD’s 2014 review of innovative development finance, estimates that with even a
very low rate tax16, if all G20 countries allocated 15% of revenues to finance development (the amount
committed by France) more than USD 50 billion of additional resources would be raised every year (OECD
2014: 182). Meanwhile a technical report by Bill Gates to the G20 leaders estimates that “a small tax of
10 basis points on equities and 2 basis points on bonds would yield about USD 48 billion on a G20-wide
basis, or USD 9 billion if confined to larger European economies” (Gates 2011: 13).
FTTs are controversial. Civil society campaigning proponents, such as the Robin Hood Tax Campaign and
Stamp Out Poverty17, point out that they are already being successfully implemented in many countries,
and some economic analysis shows that they would have a positive impact on GDP, among other points
(Happel 2015; Griffiths-Jones and Persaud; 2012). Other academic and political analysts caution FTTs
could reduce market liquidity and increase costs for investors to trade assets and hedge their portfolios,
thereby leading to lower market efficiency and higher price volatility (UNDP 2012: 18). Some
governments argue that only global FTTs could work, to avoid the potential for diversion of financial
transactions to countries without FTTs (World Bank 2013: 37; UNDP 2012: 18). Moreover, without a clear
commitment to channel resources from future FTTs into financing development goals, this may not
become a source of financing for development (World Bank 2012: 37). For example, Moon and Omole
14 See for example the Leading Group 2010 report on options to raise resources innovatively for education http://r4d.org/sites/resultsfordevelopment.org/files/resources/Leading%20Group%20Task%20Force%20on%20Education%20Report.pdf. According to the summary in UNDP 2012, tax proposals included a tax on international financial transactions and a tax on sports revenue (UNDP 2012: 36-37). 15 UNITAID (2011). Tax on Financial Transactions: An Implementation Guide. Geneva: World Health Organisation. www.unitaid.eu/images/NewWeb/documents/Finance/UTD-Report-TTF_en.pdf 16 0.2% per equity transaction and 0.001-0.01% for debt securities. 17 http://www.stampoutpoverty.org/
Micro levies for global public goods
9
(2013: 27) report it remains highly uncertain for the proposed European FTT18 how much of any revenue
raised would be dedicated to international development activities.
Currency transaction tax (CTT)
The Leading Group’s 2010 report on financial levies sets out the case for a centrally collected multi-CTT,
against the criteria of sufficiency; market impact; feasibility; and sustainability and suitability (Leading
Group 2010: 5). They call for the proceeds to be paid into a dedicated fund – and propose establishing a
new Global Solidarity Fund financing facility for global public goods (Leading Group 2010: 6). UNDP’s
2011 Human Development Report also advocates for a global CTT, finding that a minimal rate tax without
incurring additional administrative costs would yield annual revenues of about USD 40 billion (UNDP
2011: 11). Opponents argue that trade currencies work on very fine margins and even a tiny tax would
have a significant impact (UNDESA 2012: xiii). As with other innovative finance proposals, UNDESA
cautions that the more fundamental issue is securing the political support needed to earmark at least
some of the revenues for international development cooperation (UNDESA 2012: xiii).
Global carbon tax
Other proposals include carbon taxes and tax on activities which have negative impacts on the
environment (such as maritime and aviation transportation) (UNDP 2012: 19). These taxes could help to
reduce carbon emissions as well as generate a sizeable flow of revenues (UNDP 2012: 19). At the 2015
United Nations Climate Change Conference, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund pushed for
global carbon pricing through two possible mechanisms: emissions trading systems (ETS) and carbon
taxes19. The UN Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing reports that
a carbon tax on all energy-related CO2 emissions in “OECD+” countries would raise USD 10 billion in 2020
for every U.S. dollar of tax per ton of emissions (United Nations no date: 2). UNDP (2012: 19) cautions,
however, that coordinated international action on such measures has been a challenge, as is overcoming
domestic pressure to use the revenues within the countries to soften the tax’s distributional effects,
among other issues. Another challenge is ensuring that global approaches do not bear a disproportionate
tax burden as a proportion of national income on poorer countries.
Solidarity tobacco contributions
The Leading Group proposes pooling small increases in tobacco excise in both developed and developing
countries and spending on internationally agreed global health objectives (UNDP 2012: 19-20). WHO
estimates that if applied in 43 countries (G‐20+), a micro levy on tobacco products (additional to national
tobacco taxes) could generate between USD 5.5 billion and USD 16 billion each year (WHO 2011: 21).
UNDP (2012: 19-20) cautions it is likely that only a small proportion of revenues collected via tobacco
taxes will be allocated to international development objectives, because governments face significant
pressure to use such revenues to fund national health priorities.
18 In October 2011, the EC proposed the introduction of a European Union FTT within the 27 EU member states by 2014. The tax proposed charging financial institutions 0.1 per cent against the exchange of shares and bonds and 0.01 per cent across derivative contracts. Ten euro zone countries have agreed on some aspects of this and hope to reach agreement by mid-2016. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ftt-progress-idUSKBN0TR19C20151208#vLMVZCf18TkV2pLg.97 19 See https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2015/pr15473.htm and http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon for further details.
10 GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report
Caveats
Yet, while there has been a fair amount of discussion on possible new international tax initiatives for
development, spearheaded by the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development, these ideas
are proving slow to develop further, often failing to attract broader political support (UNDP 2012: 36-37).
UNDP advises that the more likely scenario in the future is the implementation of smaller schemes by
individual countries, ‘like-minded’ countries or regions (UNDP 2012:37). A key political challenge will be
to face domestic pressure not to divert all or a portion of the revenue for foreign beneficiaries, in
particular in the context of austere domestic fiscal environments (UNDP 2012: 37; Fitzgerald 2013: 12).
Others make the case for donors to invest in greater international co-operation for direct tax collection
(to which the G20 is already committed), as a more sustainable and equitable system than new forms of
global taxation which can incur new administration costs and continue traditional ODA relationships
(Fitzgerald 2013: abstract).
6. References
Chassin, Y. with Lemieux, P. (2013). Why new international taxes for development are inefficient.
Montreal: Montreal Economic Institute. http://www.iedm.org/files/cahier1013_en.pdf
Development Initiatives (2013). Innovative finance allows France to offset reduction in aid budget.
http://devinit.org/#!/post/innovative-finance-allows-france-offset-reduction-aid-budget
DFID (2013). Multilateral Aid Review Update.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260572/UNITAID-
2013-summary-assessment-update.pdf
Douste-Blazy, P. (2015). An invisible way to end poverty. Finance & Innovation.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/an-invisible-way-to-end-poverty-by-philippe-douste/
Fan, V. & Silverman. R. (2012). Finding its niche? Rethinking UNITAID’s raison d’être. Washington D.C.:
Center for Global Development. http://www.cgdev.org/doc/blog/UNITAID-Essay.pdf
FitzGerald, V. (2013). The international fiscal implications of global poverty reduction and global public
goods provision (No. 2013/136). WIDER Working Paper.
https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/WP2013-136.pdf
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development (2013). Innovative financing for
development. http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/development-
assistance/innovative-financing-for/
Gates, B. (2011). Innovation with Impact: Financing 21st Century Development. A report by Bill Gates to
G20 leaders, Cannes Summit, November.
Girishankar, N. (2009). Innovating development finance - from financing sources to financial
solutions. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1503805
Griffith-Jones S. & Persaud, A. (2012). Financial transaction taxes. http://www.stampoutpoverty.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/FINANCIAL_TRANSACTION_TAXES.pdf
Micro levies for global public goods
11
Guarnaschelli, S., Lampert, S., Marsh, E. & Johnson, L. (2014). Innovative financing for development:
scalable business models that produce economic, social, and environmental outcomes. Dalberg Global
Development Advisors. http://www.globaldevincubator.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/Innovative-Financing-for-Development.pdf
Happel, N. (2015). Financial transaction tax could boost new development goals. Inter Press Service News
Agency. http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/07/financial-transaction-tax-could-boost-new-development-
goals/
Innovative Finance Foundation (2014). Implementing an extractive industries micro-levy to fight chronic
malnutrition. Executive Summary. http://www.innovativefinance.foundation/
Innovative Finance Foundation (no date). About Innovative Finance Foundation. Webpage accessed
1/12/2015. http://www.innovativefinance.foundation/#about
ITAD (2012). UNITAID five year evaluation. Summary. http://itad.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/5YE-
Exec-Summary-UNITAID-2012-12-03-16h00.pdf
Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development (2010). Globalizing solidarity: the case for
financial levies. Paris: Leading Group on Innovative Financing to Fund Development
http://www.leadinggroup.org/IMG/pdf_Financement_innovants_web_def.pdf
Moon & Omole (2013). Development assistance for health: critiques and proposals for change. Chatham
House.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Global%20Health/0413_
devtassistancehealth.pdf
OECD (2014). Innovating to finance development, in Development Co-operation Report 2014: Mobilising
Resources for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/dcr-
2014-19-en
The I-8 Group (no date). Innovative financing for development. The i – 8 group Leading Innovative
Financing for Equity [L.I.F.E.]. New York: United Nations.
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/documents/InnovativeFinForDev.pdf
The Japan Times (2012). Green tax to come into force in October.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/09/29/business/green-tax-to-come-into-force-in-
october/#.VnKEZEqLTre
Stamp Out Poverty (2012). Financial Transaction Tax: Myth-Busting.
http://www.stampoutpoverty.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FTT-Myth-busting-FINAL.pdf
UN MDG Health Envoy (2015). New Fund Uses Micro-levies to Fight Malnutrition. Office of the UN
Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Financing the Health Millennium Development Goals and for
Malaria http://www.mdghealthenvoy.org/new-fund-uses-micro-levies-to-fight-malnutrition/
UNDESA (2012). World Economic and Social Survey 2012. In Search of New Development Finance. New
York: United Nations.
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2012wess.pdf
12 GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report
UNDP (2011). Sustainability and equity: a better future for all. Human Development Report 2011. New
York: UNDP. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/271/hdr_2011_en_complete.pdf
UNDP (2012). Innovative financing for development: A new model for development finance. New York:
UNDP. http://tinyurl.com/gszmuxj
UNITAID (n.d.). Innovative financing. http://www.unitaid.eu/en/how/innovative-financing
United Nations (n.d.). Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change
Financing, Work Stream 3: Revenue Options from Carbon-Related Sources.
www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/Documents/AGF_reports/Work_Stream_3_Re
venues%20from%20Carbon%20Related%20Sources.pdf
WHO (2011). The solidarity tobacco contribution. A new international health‐financing concept prepared
by the World Health Organization. Geneva; World Health Organization, 2011
http://www.who.int/nmh/events/un_ncd_summit2011/ncds_stc.pdf
World Bank (2013). Financing for development post-2015. The World Bank, Washington, DC,
www.worldbank.org/content/ dam/Worldbank/document/Poverty%20documents/WB-
PREM%20financing-for-development-pub-10-11-13web.pdf
Zühr, R., Schrade, C. & Yamey, G. (2014). Partnership profile: UNITAID. Evidence to Policy Initiative. Global
Health Group. http://globalhealthsciences.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/content/ghg/e2pi-unitaid-
profile.pdf
Expert contributors
Sarah Anderson, Institute for Policy Studies
Sam Lampert, Dalberg Global Development Advisors
Suerie Moon, Harvard Kennedy School
Rachel Silverman, Center for Global Development
Suggested citation
Carter, B. (2015). Micro levies for public global goods (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1318).
Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.
About this report
This report is based on five days of desk-based research. It was prepared for the UK Government’s
Department for International Development, © DFID Crown Copyright 2015. This report is licensed under
the Open Government Licence (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence). The views
expressed in this report are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GSDRC, its
partner agencies or DFID.
The GSDRC Research Helpdesk provides rapid syntheses of key literature and of expert thinking in
response to specific questions on governance, social development, humanitarian and conflict issues. Its
concise reports draw on a selection of the best recent literature available and on input from international
experts. Each GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report is peer-reviewed by a member of the GSDRC team.
Search over 400 reports at www.gsdrc.org/go/research-helpdesk. Contact: [email protected].